1

Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, December 2017 - June 2018 Statistics of checks performed by EU Member States and EEA countries to enforce the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation

2

Introduction

This document provides an overview of the checks Competent Authorities have performed over the period December 2017 - June 2018 to verify compliance of the EU Timber Regulation1 (EUTR), as well as any enforcement actions taken.

The EUTR works to ensure that illegal

timber does not enter the EU market, by

laying out the obligations of a)

operators that place timber on the EU

market (Article 4, 6), b) traders that buy

and sell timber that has already been

placed on the EU market (Article 5), and

c) monitoring organisations that

provide support to operators in fulfilling

their obligations under the EUTR

(Article 8). Competent Authorities are

tasked with performing checks on

operators, traders and monitoring

organisations to ensure that they fulfil

their obligations under the EUTR.

The statistics presented here are based

on the information provided by

Member States through an online

survey and include the responses from

27 countries2. The EUTR is

implemented by all 28 EU Member

States, as well as Norway, Iceland and

Liechtenstein (European Economic

Area), which are referred to as

‘countries’ throughout this document.

All information, figures and overviews

provided refer to the current reporting

period, unless otherwise specified.

This overview allows countries to

compare their enforcement efforts and

to foster information exchange on

particular issues of relevance. It also

helps the European Commission to

monitor and assess the implementation

and enforcement of the EUTR across

countries.

1 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R0995 2 No information was received from Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta and Spain.

Table 1: Estimated number of operators placing domestic, imported, or both types of timber on the EU internal market, by country (based on national EUTR

reports (grey italics) and updates or confirmation of estimates provided in response to the survey (black font); different methodologies were used by countries to estimate/establish these numbers.)

Country Domestic Imported Domestic and

imported

Austria 140 000 4 000 i not specified

Belgium 2 300 ii 4 000 i unknown

Bulgaria 4 013 unknown unknown

Croatia 2 700 5 000 not specified

Cyprus 62 iii 780 iii 2 iii

Czech Republic 300 000 2 500 not specified

Denmark 28 000 ii 3 800 i not specified

Estonia 10 000 450 3

Finland 350 000 ii 2 000 i unknown

France 5 000 14 000 not specified

Germany 2 000 000 ii 25 000 i not specified

Greece 1 559 233 371

Hungary 46 700 ii 2 674 ii 246 ii

Iceland unknown unknown unknown

Ireland unknown 2 169 unknown

Italy not available iv 20 000 not specified

Latvia 140 000 330 i unknown

Lichtenstein unknown unknown unknown

Lithuania 25 940 800 unknown

Luxembourg 200 ii 245 i not specified

Malta unknown 750 not specified

Netherlands 100 4 900 unknown

Norway 120 000 5 000 not specified

Poland unknown ~6 500 unknown

Portugal not specified iii not specified iii 4 571 iii

Romania 4 372 162 not specified

Slovakia 9 700 unknown unknown

Slovenia 461 000 ii 1 114 i not specified

Spain 1 000 11 000 not specified

Sweden 100 ii 4 500 i 10

United Kingdom unknown 6 000 unknown i) Estimate based on customs data ii) Land/other registry data (Luxembourg: estimate also includes estimate of private operators) iii) CA maintains register of operators. Portugal noted registration is mandatory through their electronic portal (Sistema RIO) and their database is automatically updated (see https://ruem.icnf.pt/Indicadores_RUEM/ and http://www2.icnf.pt/portal/florestas/fileiras/resource/doc/reg/RUEM-DEZEMBRO2017.pdf ); they do not distinguish between operators of domestic and imported timber. iv) Italy reported that the national list of EUTR operators is still being implemented

3

Background

Number of operators and monitoring organisations The number, size and type of operators, traders and monitoring organisations as well as patterns of trade

flows vary significantly across countries, which will influence the overall number of checks and the way

checks are performed.

Competent Authorities carry out checks to ensure operators comply with Article 4 and 6 of the EUTR,

which may include an assessment of the operator’s Due Diligence System, examination of documentation

or spot checks such as field audits. Table 1 provides an overview of the estimated numbers of operators,

by country. These estimates provide important information to be taken into consideration when

preparing plans for checks on operators.

Monitoring organisations can establish Due Diligence Systems and allow operators to use it. They have

to maintain their systems and assess proper implementation; they must also address any failure of

operators in properly using the system and report any significant or repeated shortcomings to the

Competent Authority. Monitoring organisations can be registered in one country but also offer services

in others; Competent Authorities have to check those monitoring organisations which have main offices

within their country at least every two years3. Table 2 provides an overview of the number of monitoring

organisations registered in the EU, by country.

Table 2: Main seats of monitoring organisations registered in the EU, by country (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports 2017) Monitoring organisation Denmark Estonia France Germany Italy Latvia Netherlands Spain United Kingdom

AENOR International BM Trada

Bureau Veritas Conlegno

Control Union Certification DIN CERTCO

GD Holz Service CSI S.p.A.i Le Commerce du Bois

NEPCon SGS

Soil Association Timber Checker i) As of 1st of July 2015, previously ICILA S.R.L.

National plans for checks To ensure that the diversity of situations in different countries is taken into account, while ensuring the

number and thoroughness of checks needed for an effective implementation of the EUTR, Competent

Authorities are to conduct checks in accordance with a periodically reviewed plan following a risk-based

approach. Countries therefore establish national plans for checks (Table 3), which take into consideration

various risk factors (Figure 1); checks are performed accordingly. The distribution and focus of checks

across the year may vary between countries and the number and type of checks performed may therefore

fluctuate across the year.

3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/eutr_guidance.zip

4

Figure 1: Risk criteria considered by countries when planning checks, by number of Member States (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports 2017).

Customs data and trade patterns For imported timber, customs data is a crucial resource for Competent Authorities when they are

planning checks on operators, since it contains information needed for a risk assessment (number of

operators importing timber, type of business, type of product, value of imports, volume of imports, issues

with customs declaration, country of

harvest, species). However, countries

have different levels of access to these

datasets (Figure 2, Table 4). While the

majority (21) of the reporting countries

have access to all relevant customs data,

two countries only receive information

covering certain product types, one

country only received information

covering certain time periods and two

countries reported not currently having

access to customs data (Table 4).

In addition to national customs data,

Competent Authorities may also take into

consideration changes in global trade

patterns4 or may use information from

traders’ records on suppliers to identify

products, producer countries or operator

types for checks.

4 wcmc.io/TimberTrade_EUTR

Figure 2: Frequency of data exchange between customs and Competent Authorities, by number of countries (*in addition, some countries indicated that customs data are also

available upon request, see Table 4).

6

2

1

711

6

2

1

4

Free access

Any time, upon request

Weekly

Monthly*

Quarterly

Twice per year*

Annually*

No access

No response

No survey

5

Table 3: National plans for checks on the implementation of the EUTR (based on information submitted in EUTR national reports 20175, for the period March 2015 – February 2017)

Time schedule for plan i

Country Main criteria considered when planning checks Domestic Imported Austria Imported: assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised;

Domestic: operators selected by ministry and checked during annual roundwood removal survey annual annual check plan ii

Belgium Risk criteria no schedule no schedule

Bulgaria Not specified annual not specified Croatia Risk criteria annual

Cyprus Assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised; 10% of operators per CN code checked except Chapters 47, 48 and 94 where 1% of operators are checked. Substantiated concerns are followed up on immediately continuously monthly

Czech Republic Risk criteria annual i annual i Denmark Risk criteria and some operators are randomly selected not specified not specified

Estonia Risk criteria, concerns received and aiming at cross-selection of different products, countries of origin, sizes of companies annual annual

Finland Assessment of customs data and risk criteria. Also random checks. annual annual France Assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised. Regional CAs follow

this plan and conduct checks July-January the following year annual i annual

Germany 150-200 checks annually based on risk criteria from 3 groups: high risk origin of timber, furniture businesses (only this period as found not to be implementing the EUTR well) and risk research/follow-up checks not specified quarterly

Greece Planning on the basis of the circular 144548/4805 / 14-09-2016 annual i annual i

Hungary Risk criteria, random checks. Substantiated concerns are followed up on. Check plan defined in national legislation, including: (A) the definition of objectives and risks, (B) the timetable for inspections, (C) sales chains related to timber products concerned by the priority checks, (D) the measurement and follow-up methods of achieving the objectives, (E) in carrying out checks with other authorities, the implementation plans and conditions of cooperation and mutual assistance, (F) relevant performance indicators used in the evaluation of the audit plan annual annual

Ireland Risk criteria; planning flexible to react to advice from Commission, other CAs and substantiated concerns not specified not specified

Italy Risk criteria, assessment of customs data annual annual Latvia Imported: Assessment of customs data and high risk imports prioritised, planning

flexible to react to new information. Domestic: 348 audited inspectors check ~70% of domestic felling areas through field visits; all felling areas are subject to desktop checks. Internal auditing procedure ensures additional crosschecking; additional field visits focus on the legality of harvesting. annual i twice per year

Lithuania Risk criteria, also operators that have not yet been checked or not for a longer period, or that were previously in breach of the EUTR

annual or quarterly plan monthly

Luxembourg Risk criteria, with 5% of operators from 4 groups selected: imported timber, selling domestic timber, buying timber and substantiated concerns i annual annual

Malta Risk criteria, operator performance and enforcement record. Substantiated concerns are followed up on not applicable i twice per year

Netherlands Risk criteria not specified not specified

Norway Risk criteria 2 years 2 years Poland Risk criteria annual annual

Portugal Risk criteria annual annual Romania All operators and traders of domestic timber planned to be checked 2 years not specified

Slovakia Domestic: based on legislation, and as required. Checks are due every 5-10 years; bigger operators checked every 2 years annual not specified

Slovenia Risk criteria annual annual

Spain Risk criteria; a national plan is the basis for the regional check plans not specified not specified Sweden Risk criteria annual annual

United Kingdom Risk criteria annual annual i) Due to limited levels of detail provided, this information was inferred ii) Checks on specific imports selected from weekly customs data

5 Countries submit national reports biennially on the implementation and enforcement of the EUTR (Article 20, EUTR).

6

i) Iceland did not provide a response to this question ii) Upon request any time iii) Portugal noted there was currently no data exchange between customs and their Competent Authority iv) United Kingdom noted they do not currently have access to customs data but are negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding to rectify this

Statistics of checks performed December 2017 - June 2018

Over the period December 2017 - June 2018, the reporting Competent Authorities conducted checks on 2065 domestic operators and 617 importing operators, amounting to 2710 and 1074 individual checks, respectively. In addition, 665 checks on traders dealing with domestic timber and 87 on traders dealing with imported timber took place. Six monitoring organisations were checked and 15 countries received a total of 327 substantiated concerns.

Country Frequency of data exchange Data on EUTR products shared Austria Weekly All customs data related to timber imports

Belgium Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Bulgaria Free access All customs data related to timber imports

Croatia Monthly ii All customs data related to timber imports

Cyprus Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Czech Republic Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

Denmark Monthly ii Only certain product types related to timber imports

Estonia Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports

Finland Monthly All customs data related to timber imports

France Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports

Germany Biannually ii All customs data related to timber imports

Hungary Monthly ii All customs data related to timber imports

Ireland Free access due to Data Sharing agreement ii All customs data related to timber imports

Italy Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports

Latvia Free access ii All customs data related to timber imports

Lithuania Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports

Luxembourg Annually Only certain product types related to timber imports

Netherlands Free access ii All customs data related to timber imports

Norway Annually ii All customs data related to timber imports

Poland Quarterly All customs data related to timber imports

Portugal iii No access -

Romania Free access All customs data related to timber imports

Slovakia Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports

Slovenia Free access All customs data related to timber imports

Sweden Requested when required All customs data related to timber imports

United Kingdom iv No access -

Table 4: Frequency of data exchange between customs and Competent Authorities and extent of data on timber products shared, by country i

7

Twenty-seven countries confirmed having

performed checks over this period. Nineteen

countries reported checking domestic

operators, with six of them identifying

operators with unsatisfactory Due Diligence

Systems (DDS) in place (Table 5). Twenty-four

countries checked importing operators and 14

identified operators with unsatisfactory DDS in

place (Tables 7 and 8).

Seventeen countries reported having checked

traders, and, other than Hungary, Italy and

Poland, all countries were satisfied that

appropriate traceability systems had been put

in place by these traders (Table 10 and 11).

Four countries reported that they checked

monitoring organisations. Overall, six checks

were performed, with all monitoring

organisations fulfilling the requirements of

Article 8(1).

Fifteen countries reported having received

substantiated concerns (Table 9), 12 of which

confirmed that they subsequently informed

those submitting the concerns about the steps

that had been taken. Of the countries that did

not inform those who submitted substantiated

concerns, Denmark explained that one of the sources of the substantiated concern was anonymous, Italy

noted that the substantiated concern had not yet been formally submitted and Lithuania stated that there

were no infringements.

It is worth noting that some of the enforcement action taken in this reporting period may be in response

to checks carried out prior to this period. Similarly, some enforcement action in response to the checks

done during this period may only be reported on in the next overview document.

Competent Authorities also performed joint checks through bilateral or regional cooperation, focussing

on operators importing timber and timber products into more than one country.

The following tables (Tables 5-12) provide overviews of the checks performed by Competent Authorities

over the period December 2017 – June 2018, the basis of these checks, substantiated concerns received

and any enforcement steps taken following checks.

6 wcmc.io/EUTR_briefing_note_November17-January18 7 wcmc.io/EUTR_briefing_note_February-March2018 8 wcmc.io/EUTR_briefing_note_April-May18 9 wcmc.io/EUTR_briefing_note_June-August18

Substantiated Concerns

EIA reported on two suppliers of Burmese teak trading in breach of EUTR. The teak was being used for yacht decking by UK yacht builders. The teak suppliers have been found to be in breach of EUTR by their respective CAs (NHG Timber in the UK and Vandercasteele Hout Import in Belgium)6.

Public reports of checks or enforcement action

In the UK, Hardwood Dimensions (Holdings) Ltd was ordered to pay a fine of GBP 4000 plus costs for failing to check the legality of an import of timber from Cameroon7.

The Swedish CA issued a fine of SEK 800 000 to Dollarstore due to the operator demonstrating deficiencies in documentation and not

conducting risk assessments on imports7.

The Belgian CA reported that they improved EUTR implementation considerably since late 2017, resulting in four notices of remedial action and four cases being passed to the public prosecutor’s office8.

A Dutch court has given the Dutch CA the go-ahead to take enforcement action against an operator who imports Burmese teak for the purpose of yacht building. The company was found not to have produced the required documentation for a consignment of teak and also failed to carry out adequate risk assessment and risk mitigation measures. If the company fails to exercise adequate due diligence within two months of the order, the Dutch CA is authorised to levy fines of EUR 20 000 per cubic metre of timber, up to a maximum of EUR 800 000, if imports continue9.

Joint checks

The Swedish and Norwegian CAs conducted joint inspections in June 2018. The Latvian CA was accompanied by the Dutch CA for two checks on operators importing timber from Russia8.

8

Table 5: Overview of domestic operator checks and results December 2017-June 2018.

Country No. of operators checked

No. of desk based reviews

No. of document reviews on site

No. of product inspections on site

No. of document & product inspections on site

No. of operators without appropriate DDS

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of court cases

No. of other actions

No. of instances of no action

Bulgaria 200 33 14

Croatia 13 13 0 0 0

Cyprus 100 0 0 0 100

Czech Republic 24 4 20

Denmark 10

Estonia 337 337 32 2 0 16 0 4

France 5 8 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Hungary 3 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 7 0

Ireland 1 1 0 0 0

Italy 666 1810 8 8 1viiii

Norway 7 7 Poland 14 10 4

Portugal 21 14 0 0 14

Romania 499 418 307 256 355 147 150 18 15

Slovakia 108 108

Slovenia 218 181 27 10 36 27 9

Sweden 5 5

i) Austria noted that providing this data during the year would be disproportionate compared to the low risk of illegality for domestic timber ii) Belgium noted regional authorities are competent to elaborate and check the forest legislation and have enforcement plans to carry out forest checks and no problems have yet been reported hence there is no priority for additional checks by the federal Competent Authority iii) Finland noted the use of control systems embedded within various forestry legislation and checks are carried out for national operators and the system is based upon a forest use declaration to ensure due diligence, along with a certificate of measurement. Approximately 1% of declarations (i.e. 1000) are then checked annually in the field. iv) Iceland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom stated there is little to no domestic production of timber v) Lithuania noted domestic operators are checked by a different authority vi) Denmark stated checks to domestic operators were only carried out on the basis of substantiated concerns vii) Latvia noted that a substantial number of checks take place on domestic operators, based on national forestry legislation and the EUTR. They reported that 17 court cases (8 administrative, 9 criminal) were closed in the period relating to domestic timber. All 8 administrative cases and 6 criminal cases ended in favour of the CA and 2 criminal cases in favour of the defendant, in one case the legal process was ended. Information from 3 of the 10 regions were not available viii) Italy confirmed that one operator was subject to a criminal penalty

No survey response:Greece,Liechtenstein, Malta, Spain

No responseto these questions:Austria i, Germany

Operators not checked: Belgium ii, Finland iii, Iceland iv, Lithuania v, Luxembourg, the Netherlands iv, United Kingdom iii

Operators checked: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark vi, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia vii, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden

9

Table 6: Basis of domestic operator checks December 2017-June 2018.

i) Sweden noted inspections were always done on site or via Skype, then followed up with office based document reviews

Country Level of risk Production/trade volumes Value of products Market share/importance of these operators Substantiated concerns Other

Bulgaria ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Croatia ✓ ✓ ✓

Annual plan

Cyprus

✓ ✓

Czech Republic ✓

✓

Estonia ✓ ✓

✓ Type of cutting (e.g. thinning, clear cutting)

France ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

Hungary

✓ Ex-officio investigation

Ireland

✓

Italy ✓ ✓

✓

Latvia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Norway ✓ ✓

Poland ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Portugal ✓

✓ ✓ Phytosanitary purpose

Romania ✓ ✓

Slovakia ✓ ✓

Slovenia ✓

✓

Sweden i ✓ ✓

10

Table 7: Overview of importing operator checks and results December 2017-June 2018.

i) Austria noted that the Federal Forest Office is not competent to issue penalties; cases pending at competent District Administration Authorities ii) Belgium noted that in three cases a decision on a sanction is yet to be taken, with a decision to prosecute taken on one of these cases. For a further four checks the decision on whether DDS is appropriate is yet to be taken. iii) Estonia and Romania noted checks to operators importing timber are planned for later in the year, with Romania stating screening was primarily done by volume and all importers would be checked this year iv) Italy noted that one criminal penalty was charged to an operator v) Lithuania noted most imported timber goes to another Member State, hence no checks were performed vi) Sweden noted that seven cases are still open, therefore results are currently inconclusive. Nine cases have been closed after correcting minor issues vii) Latvia noted that two cases are still open.

Country No. of operators checked

No. of desk based reviews

No. of document reviews on site

No. of product inspections on site

No. of document & product inspections on site

No. of operators without appropriate DDS

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of court cases

No. of imprisonment

No. of no action

No. of other penalties

Austria 3 3 3 i

Belgium 14 13 1 13 ii 10

Bulgaria 3

Croatia 13 13

Cyprus 13 2 1 0 10 Czech Republic 16 16

Denmark 10 8 2 8 8

Estonia iii 0 Finland 25 1 24 21 24 2 France 7 7 7

Germany 121 5 75 46 79 42 15

Hungary 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3

Iceland 4 4

Ireland 11 8 3

Italy 104 605 38 55 74 1 iv

Latvia 3 3 3vii 1 Lithuania v 0

Luxembourg 0

Netherlands 47 47 12 6 6

Norway 8 8 4 5

Poland 37 30 7 7 4 3 3

Portugal 10 10 10

Romania iii 108 51 47 7 7

Slovakia 14 14

Slovenia 9 0 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Sweden 15 6 9 15 vi 4 0 0 0 0

United Kingdom 20 12 8 14 7 1 10

Operators checked: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

Operators not checked: Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg

No survey response:Greece, Liechtenstein, Malta, Spain

11

Table 8: Basis of importing operator checks December 2017-June 2018.

Country Level of risk Import volume Market share/ importance of these operators to import market

Value of imported products

Country of origin Product type Species in trade Substantiated concerns Intelligence/ information on potential issues with DDS

Other

Austria ✔ ✔ ✔

Belgium ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Bulgaria ✔ ✔ ✔

Croatia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Annual plan

Cyprus ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Czech Republic ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Denmark ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Estonia

Finland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

France ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Germany ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Hungary Ex-officio investigation

Iceland ✔

Ireland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Italy ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Latvia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Lithuania ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Luxembourg

Netherlands ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Norway ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Poland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Portugal ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Phytosanitary purpose

Romania ✔ ✔ ✔

Slovakia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Slovenia ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Sweden ✔ ✔ ✔

United Kingdom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

12

Table 9: Overview of substantiated concerns received December 2017-June 2018.

Country No. of concerns* No. of concerns raised by individuals

No. of concerns raised by organisations

No. of concerns raised by police

No. of concerns raised by customs

No. of concerns raised by Government agencies

No. of concerns raised by the media

No. of concerns raised by unspecified authority

No. of resulting checks

Those submitting concerns were informed about steps taken

Belgium 2 1 1 3 Yes

Czech Republic 8 1 7 4 Yes Denmark 2 1 1 1 No i

Estonia 114 114 106 Yes France 1 1 ii 1 Yes

Germany 1 1 1 Yes Hungary 159 8 0 44 81 26 35 Yesiii

Ireland 1 0 1 1 Yes Italy 1 1 1 No iv

Lithuania 8 0 8 41 No v Luxembourg 1 1 1 Yes Netherlands 2 0 2 4 Yes

Portugal 2 1 1vi 4 Yes Romania 21 14 7 20 Yes

Slovenia 4 4 4 Yes

* a concern may involve more than one operator/company i) Denmark noted that one substantiated concern was received anonymously ii) France noted that the substantiated concerns were from Greenpeace on ipê importers in Brazil. These will be checked during the second period of 2018 iii) Hungary noted that many cases were still ongoing (in addition to the 35 checks) and that all those who submitted substantiated concerns will be informed at the end of the administrative proceedings iv) Italy noted that the results of the check has not yet been formally submitted to the organization who submitted the substantiated concern v) Lithuania noted that there were no infringements vi) The CA prepared a briefing note for the news agency in order to clarify the checks related to the substantiated concerns

No survey response:Greece, Malta, Liechtenstein, Spain

No substantiated concerns: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, United Kingdom

Substantiated concerns received: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia

13

Table 10: Overview of domestic timber trader checks and results December 2017-June 2018.

i) Austria noted that providing this data at this stage would be disproportionate considering to the low risk of illegality. There is no plan for trader checks, traders are only asked for information if required, for example in case of suspicion ii) Ireland stated that checks on traders were not performed during this period, due to the risk based approach taken iii) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period

Country

No. of checks No. of traders without appropriate traceability

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of cases of imprisonment

No. of court cases

No action

No. of other penalties

Belgium 0 iii

Bulgaria 61

Croatia 13

Cyprus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Estonia 20

Hungary 30 11 15 17 9 0 3 1 59

Italy 13 13

13

Lithuania 0 iii

Poland 5

Portugal 11

Romania 499

20 3 21

Slovenia 2

Sweden 0 iii

United Kingdom

0 iii

Traders checked: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

Traders not checked: Austria i, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland ii, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia

No survey response:Greece, Malta, Liechtenstein, Spain

No response to these questions: Iceland

14

Table 11: Overview of imported timber trader checks and results December 2017-June 2018.

Country No. of checks No. of traders without appropriate traceability

No. of notices of remedial action

No. of notices of remedial action that led to penalties

No. of financial penalties

No. of imprisonment No. of court cases

No. of no action No. of other penalties

Austria 1 1 1 ii

Belgium 1 Cyprus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Estonia 0 iii Germany 12

Hungary 0 iii 0

Lithuania 41 41 0 0 0 0 0 0

Poland 3 1 1

Portugal 2

Romania 17 4 Slovenia 2

Sweden 4

United Kingdom 2

i) Ireland stated that checks on traders were not performed during this period, due to the risk based approach taken ii) Austria noted that the Federal Forest Office is not competent to issue penalties; cases pending at competent District Administration Authorities iii) Country reported performing checks on traders but none conducted in this reporting period

Traders checked: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

Traders not checked: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland i, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia

No survey response:Greece, Malta, Liechtenstein, Spain

No response to these questions: Iceland

15

Table 12: Overview of court cases and outcomes December 2017-June 2018.

Country Defendant Date at court

Basis of case Outcome/verdict

France Operator of domestic timber - CA check Closed the case

Germany Operator - - -

Hungaryi Trader June 2018 CA check Dismissal of the case

Hungary Operator May 2018 CA check Dismissal of the case

Hungary Trader April 2018 Substantiated concern Repealed the decision and referred the case back to the CA

Hungary Trader May 2018 Substantiated concern Repealed the decision and referred the case back to the CA

Latviaii 17 cases involving operators of domestic timber

- - All 8 administrative cases in favour of CA; 6 criminal cases in favour of CA; 2 criminal cases in favour of defendant; 1 criminal case ended

Luxembourg Operator June 2018 Substantiated concern In progress

Sweden Dollarstore (Operator) 6 March 2018 CA check In favour of CA. Administrative Court. Appealed to the Chamber of appeal

Sweden Kärnsund Wood Link (Operator) 18 May 2018 CA check In favour of operator

Sweden Dollarstore (Operator) 11 June 2018 CA sending new injunction with a fine

Appealed by the operator. Ongoing

United Kingdom

Operator February 2018 CA check In favour of CA

i Hungary noted that all court cases to date had been due to operators/traders challenging the CAs decisions. They also highlighted that information on infringements and steps taken is available online: http://portal.nebih.gov.hu/eutr-jogsertesek ii Latvia noted that information was not available from 3 of the 10 region

Comparison of the number of checks with the previous reporting period There are several caveats that must be considered when comparing the data between this reporting period

(December 2017 – June 2018) and the previous report (June – November 201710). The current period spans seven

months as opposed to six months in the previous report. In addition, there has been an increase in the number of

reporting countries (from 20 to 27), with 26 countries having performed checks over this period (compared with

19 previously). The difference in time of year may also influence the types of activities planned by Competent

Authorities.

These caveats aside, the number of operators checked relating to domestic timber has risen substantially from

467 in the previous period to 2065 in this period (2710 individual checks, up from 499) and in relation to checks

on operators of imported timber, it has risen from 388 checks to 617 (1074 individual checks, up from 406). The

same number of countries found unsatisfactory due diligence systems in this period as in the previous period (17

countries, 6 domestic and 14 imported). The number of substantiated concerns has increased from 105 received

by seven countries in the previous period to 327 by 15 countries in this period. Trader checks of domestic timber

have also risen, from 300 checks on traders in the previous period to 665 in this period, however checks on traders

of imported timber have decreased from 177 to 87.

Other Competent Authority actions

Collaboration Collaboration among Competent Authorities is essential to ensure a coherent implementation and enforcement

of the EUTR across the EU. Over the reporting period, Competent Authorities collaborated through the

informal EUTR Expert Group meetings (in February, April and June), as well as through other activities

(countries reporting on activities provided in brackets):

10 wcmc.io/Overview_CA_checks_June-November_2017

16

Regular exchange with other Competent Authorities to perform checks (Czech Republic, Hungary,

Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden)

The Nordic-Baltic EUTR collaboration (Denmark, Finland, Latvia and Sweden; other countries also

participate), and the newly established Central European EUTR collaboration (Austria and Slovenia

reported on this; Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia also participate)

Belgium noted the sharing of information about other countries and operators with the Competent

Authorities of Germany, the Netherlands and the UK

Bulgaria noted the provision of information to the Competent Authority of Greece

Czech Republic and Hungary reported upon collaboration with Austria, Poland and Slovakia through

the mini TREE workshop

Denmark, France, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia noted their participation at the 5-6 June workshop for

Mediterranean cooperation (funded by the EC TAIEX-EIR PEER 2 PEER programme)

Latvia noted their involvement in two EU TAIEX expert missions to Ukraine and assistance to other

Competent Authorities with information on illegal logging and forest governance in Ukraine

Germany and Belgium shared information on an import of low priced Wenge wood from the

Democratic Republic of Congo which is currently under investigation

Hungary noted a bilateral meeting with Romania to discuss issues of traceability and tracking of timber,

and with Slovakia, to collect information on practical experience on the implementation of the EUTR in

both countries, with the possibility for join inspections in future

Ireland noted bilateral collaboration and the attendance of two webinars (TREE webinar hosted by

Forest Trends and Brazilian Timber webinar hosted by the European Commission and Greenpeace –

other countries also participated)

Latvia reported the on collaboration between Competent Authorities including the UK about imports

from China and Ukraine; Czech Republic about imports from Ukraine; and the Netherlands and

Denmark about various issues

Norway reported on the exchange of information with Denmark and Sweden and consultation with

Latvia

The United Kingdom reported on continued collaboration with other authorities regarding teak imports

from Myanmar

Awareness raising Competent Authorities also engaged in awareness raising over this reporting period, through:

Workshops and meetings for operators or trade associations; Czech Republic (5), Denmark (4),

Lithuania (2), Finland (1) and Slovakia (1)

Information campaigns; Czech Republic (6), Finland (4), Cyprus (3), Lithuania (3), Denmark (1),

Germany (1), Lithuania (3)

One-to-one awareness raising with operators and traders (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,

Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia)

Provision of updates on Competent Authority websites (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus,

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia)

Citation

UNEP-WCMC, 2018. Overview of Competent Authority EU Timber Regulation checks, December 2017-June 2018. Statistics of checks performed by EU Member States and EEA countries to enforce the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation. UNEP-WCMC,

Cambridge, UK.

Legal notice This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission

cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.